Jump to content

Permanent Rumour Thread


Fanpuck33

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

Feels like a lateral move to me. 

 

The only reason I ever considered moving Galchenyuk was because of the uncertainty surrounding his position, not because of his skill set. With Gallagher, we know where he belongs and what he brings.

 

I guess Nugent-Hopkins is more defensively responsible than Galchenyuk but I've never been overly concerned about Galchenyuk's defensive capabilities, personally.

 

The reason I compare Nugent-Hopkins to Galchenyuk is because they're somewhat similar and we already have one for free. It's another move where we acquire a player to fill a roster spot of need all the while losing something of equal or better value.

 

Our top 6 could be 

 

Pacioretty-Galchenyuk-Gallagher

Byron-Danault-Drouin

 

or

 

Pacioretty-Drouin-Gallagher

Lehkonen-Galchenyuk-Hemsky

 

or trade for RNH

 

Pacioretty-Galchenyuk-Drouin

Lehkonen-Nugent-Hopkins-Hemsky

 

It might look a little better which I guess is the point, but there goes our depth at right wing. I wouldn't have thought Hemsky should be top 6 either way but trading Gallagher might force the issue.

 

I'd be fine with getting Nugent-Hopkins and am all over the get a center idea but I don't think I'd be ecstatic about the trade. It's close to a wash for me and I think there might be better ways to get a center in the future, whether it's trading a pick at the deadline or some other route.

you're dreaming if you think Hemsky is a viable top 6 option and RNH has done squat during his career in Edmonton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Hemsky belongs in the top 6.

 

This was my post a few weeks ago when someone suggested he would be in the top 6.

 

[From the Galchenyuk Signed Thread]

 

"Hemsky is probably going to disappoint you on the second line and I have Czech heritage and want to like him. I also think there is something to the nationality thing and that it would be fine to see Plekanec-Hemsky as a duo next season on the 3rd line. Either way, I do believe our second and third lines will be somewhat interchangeable in how we label them next year."

 

That's exactly my point though. If you trade Gallagher, Hemsky is the second best right wing on the depth chart. If you place Drouin at center, this also becomes the case. Right now the only way to solve not having Hemsky in the top 6, is playing Danault as a top 6 center which also isn't ideal in my books. If you trade Gallagher, you solve one problem, only to cause another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

That's exactly my point though. If you trade Gallagher, Hemsky is the second best right wing on the depth chart. If you place Drouin at center, this also becomes the case. Right now the only way to solve not having Hemsky in the top 6, is playing Danault as a top 6 center which also isn't ideal in my books. If you trade Gallagher, you solve one problem, only to cause another.

2

 

What's stopping them from adding a replacement winger in this scenario though?  There are still a few short-term fixes on the open market that would represent upgrades on Shaw and Hemsky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

What's stopping them from adding a replacement winger in this scenario though?  There are still a few short-term fixes on the open market that would represent upgrades on Shaw and Hemsky.

Vanek or Jagr eh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It probably is the case that it's easier to acquire to top-6 or even top-3 winger than a top-6 C. I'm not saying Hemsky is a valid option, just endorsing the aforementioned general proposition.

 

If the trade proposal is defensible, it's because of positional considerations: we finally get a respectable 2nd-line C, basically a Plekanec replacement. If it's correct to say that W are easier to find than C, then it's not quite Whack-A-Mole, because the hole at RW should be easier to fill.

 

Anyway, I wouldn't go to the wall defending this proposal. That Habs29, who lives in Alberta and has presumably seen more of RNH than most of us, wants no part of him, is a bit worrisome to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stogey24
2 hours ago, dlbalr said:

 

What's stopping them from adding a replacement winger in this scenario though?  There are still a few short-term fixes on the open market that would represent upgrades on Shaw and Hemsky.

Why did we sign Shaw, honestly 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Stogey24 said:

Why did we sign Shaw, honestly 

 

Because he is a sandpaper guy that had Stanley cup experience who put up decent amount of points and can play any position in f needed. 

 

I don't think anyone knew he would be battling concussions all year which is unfortunate. I know a lot of people are griping over his cap hit but how much is he really overpaid by? 9 K?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Stogey24 said:

Why did we sign Shaw, honestly 

 

I think before going nuts on Shaw, consider how he played once Julien got here. If can play like that all season, I don't anyone will be complaining about that deal by next summer. OR, he really only gets going close to playoff time and then he's slightly overpaid. As for the Hemsky, I really don't see the point of even considering him in the top 6.

 

Pacioretty-Galchenyuk-Drouin (27-72 interchangeable)

Lehkonen-Danault-Gallagher

Byron-Plekanec-Hemsky

Shaw-Mitchell-Martinsen/McCarron

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Stogey24 said:

Hemsky makes 1 million dollars on a  1 year deal.

 

Shaw makes 3.9 over the next 5 years.

 

 

 

Hemsky is also a lot older and doesn't have nearly the effective game Shaw is capable of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scott462 said:

 

Because he is a sandpaper guy that had Stanley cup experience who put up decent amount of points and can play any position in f needed. 

 

I don't think anyone knew he would be battling concussions all year which is unfortunate. I know a lot of people are griping over his cap hit but how much is he really overpaid by? 9 K?

He's overpaid by  $1.5 to $2m and there is no way we should be giving a 6 year term to a grunt like Shaw unless we are getting him at a discount.  It's stupid to overpay AND give term to him.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stogey24 said:

Hemsky makes 1 million dollars on a  1 year deal.

 

Shaw makes 3.9 over the next 5 years.

 

 

When you bout it that way I'd rather have hemsky than Shaw - could do without both though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stogey24
8 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

When you bout it that way I'd rather have hemsky than Shaw - could do without both though.

I don't want either. I just brought up their contract because I thought Kev was comparing the two.

 

Shaw at 3.9 for 3 years, I wouldn't really bitch about, but 6 years is over the top for sure 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

He's overpaid by  $1.5 to $2m and there is no way we should be giving a 6 year term to a grunt like Shaw unless we are getting him at a discount.  It's stupid to overpay AND give term to him.  

 

I agree he's over paid by a bit but I don't really have too much issue with the term. Shaw is still relatively young and if it wasn't for his concussions it really wouldn't be an issue.

 

I know you think everyone should be had at a discount but that's not always the way it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kev1586 said:

 

I think before going nuts on Shaw, consider how he played once Julien got here. If can play like that all season, I don't anyone will be complaining about that deal by next summer. OR, he really only gets going close to playoff time and then he's slightly overpaid. As for the Hemsky, I really don't see the point of even considering him in the top 6.

 

Pacioretty-Galchenyuk-Drouin (27-72 interchangeable)

Lehkonen-Danault-Gallagher

Byron-Plekanec-Hemsky

Shaw-Mitchell-Martinsen/McCarron

 

The issue for me is that I don't want to see Danault in the top 6 just as much as I wouldn't want to see Hemsky. It probably will be what happens, but I'll quietly dislike it whenever I see the pregame lineup. I'd rather see Danault as a top 6 winger which admittedly is a very strange thing to say about a team who needs top

6 centers.

 

 

8 hours ago, dlbalr said:

 

What's stopping them from adding a replacement winger in this scenario though?  There are still a few short-term fixes on the open market that would represent upgrades on Shaw and Hemsky.

 

I'd be perfectly fine with trading Gallagher for Nugent-Hopkins and them signing Vanek/Jagr and Markov for a year. I even thought of that as I posted.

 

The only thing is that Nugent-Hopkins carries a larger cap hit than Gallagher which would probably make my suggestion impossible.

 

With the NHL off season quieting down, it also

seems like that would involve a lot more musical chairs moving around considering how quiet everything has been. I'm not sure I expect 3 more moves from the team this off season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

I'd be perfectly fine with trading Gallagher for Nugent-Hopkins and them signing Vanek/Jagr and Markov for a year. I even thought of that as I posted.

 

The only thing is that Nugent-Hopkins carries a larger cap hit than Gallagher which would probably make my suggestion impossible.

 

 

It's a $2.25 million difference between the two.  Given what they already have committed for '18-'19 in terms of payroll, the added money wouldn't help but if it helps to solve a long-standing problem, it's still probably worth doing.

 

On a side note, any rumours out there?  We seem to have gone off-topic ever-so-slightly here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Habs interested in Duclair, Habs could be a fit for Winnick, Sabres want Markov and Jets interested in trade for Galchenyuk (all from the mind of Eklund)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Stogey24 said:

I don't want either. I just brought up their contract because I thought Kev was comparing the two.

 

Shaw at 3.9 for 3 years, I wouldn't really bitch about, but 6 years is over the top for sure 

 

The term argument is likely the best one to dislike Shaw. I just think that if he plays this season like he ended the last, there won't be much complaining about it until he stops playing that way.

 

2 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

 

The issue for me is that I don't want to see Danault in the top 6 just as much as I wouldn't want to see Hemsky. It probably will be what happens, but I'll quietly dislike it whenever I see the pregame lineup. I'd rather see Danault as a top 6 winger which admittedly is a very strange thing to say about a team who needs top

6 centers.

 

 

I think this assessment of Danault might be premature. Remember that Danault was playing in his first full NHL season as a top line center. I think he can be a very capable 2nd pivot given the right line mates. He's not overly skilled but he's fast and he's not afraid to go get the pucks in the corners to distribute to the skilled players. AND he's responsible... With a bit of time to adjust to the role (which was last year), I think he could surprise us and be a capable in that position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kev1586 said:

 

The term argument is likely the best one to dislike Shaw. I just think that if he plays this season like he ended the last, there won't be much complaining about it until he stops playing that way.

 

 

I think this assessment of Danault might be premature. Remember that Danault was playing in his first full NHL season as a top line center. I think he can be a very capable 2nd pivot given the right line mates. He's not overly skilled but he's fast and he's not afraid to go get the pucks in the corners to distribute to the skilled players. AND he's responsible... With a bit of time to adjust to the role (which was last year), I think he could surprise us and be a capable in that position.

I appreciate the optimism and it's very convincing. Perhaps it's even possible. Centers 31 through 60 in scoring last season had 44-55 points, however. Philip Danault ended with 40 points all the while playing with Max Pacioretty and Alexander Radulov. I'll concede that it was his first season at it but will also argue that he may not get the chance to have linemates as skilled again to help inflate his stats. 

 

Interestingly enough, Danault isn't even listed as a center on NHL.com. 

 

The other issue is that while I've agreed that we don't necessarily need an elite center and rather just a top 6 center, we don't have a Joe Thornton or Evgeni Malkin to insulate the fact that Danault would be our top 6 center. In addition, we have the same centers as last season and so there's no reason at this point to believe that he actually wouldn't be our top line center, once again, unless Drouin is thrown into the role. It could be simply argued that the reason our center depth looks weak is because Danault is in that top 6 role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DON said:

Habs interested in Duclair, Habs could be a fit for Winnick, Sabres want Markov and Jets interested in trade for Galchenyuk (all from the mind of Eklund)

 

We have no use for Winnick, i'll just make that clear from my standpoint anyway.

 

Duclair is on wobbly ground with his reputation much like Drouin was, perhaps now is the time to strike for a guy like him.

 

Galchenyuk isn't going anywhere yet unless someone offers the moon for him, we should be leaving him to rebuild his stock again during this contract, and maybe in the near future after that value has been increased CONSIDER moving him for a dire need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

I appreciate the optimism and it's very convincing. Perhaps it's even possible. Centers 31 through 60 in scoring last season had 44-55 points, however. Philip Danault ended with 40 points all the while playing with Max Pacioretty and Alexander Radulov. I'll concede that it was his first season at it but will also argue that he may not get the chance to have linemates as skilled again to help inflate his stats. 

 

Interestingly enough, Danault isn't even listed as a center on NHL.com. 

 

The other issue is that while I've agreed that we don't necessarily need an elite center and rather just a top 6 center, we don't have a Joe Thornton or Evgeni Malkin to insulate the fact that Danault would be our top 6 center. In addition, we have the same centers as last season and so there's no reason at this point to believe that he actually wouldn't be our top line center, once again, unless Drouin is thrown into the role. It could be simply argued that the reason our center depth looks weak is because Danault is in that top 6 role.

keep in mind that Danault started the season at 3rd line Wing and moved to C the top line in december? after Galchenyuks knee issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IN THE HEARTS OF MEN said:

keep in mind that Danault started the season at 3rd line Wing and moved to C the top line in december? after Galchenyuks knee issue

 

Lots of things to consider regarding Danault. This is why I said that the judgment on him is premature. Not necessarily wrong, just premature. To me, you give him a full season with any of Lehkonen, Pacioretty, Drouin, Galchenyuk, Gallagher on his wing before deciding where he "belongs" on the roster.

 

If nothing happens between now and October (and boy does that seem likely now), I wonder if either of Galchenyuk or Drouin will be able to take the top center position and run with it. It has to be what Bergevin is gambling on to be this quiet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...